Pages

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Religious Left Praying and Advocating for Obamacare

Violating the most fundamental teaching of Christianity and Christ Himself, the religious left is following the call of President Obama to be activists for his "Obamacare" which will come before the US Supreme Court later this month.

New revelations and mandates in the President's health care plan are chilling and far reaching, and even involve the University of Washington.

The religious left is planning "virtual parties" by teleconferences this month preceding and during the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Obamacare. The parties will include personal testimonies of how much the President and his social agenda means to those who give the testimonies.

They will be based in the United Methodist Building across the street from the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill. They will be praying, advocating and hosting a "radio row" from which left wing radio talk show hosts can broadcast live during the Court hearing.

Ironically, the building that was built by faithful Methodists who stood for Temperance in the 1920s, is now being used by the most far left President in the history of our nation and those who are heeding his call to advance the most damaging piece of legislation in our history---and certainly the most anti-religious liberty and anti-life bill to become law since our Founders laid their reputations and fortunes on the line to frame a new nation under God. Only Roe v. Wade stands in its company.

How can so-called religious people lean so far left as to not only support, but advocate for legislation that tramples on religious freedoms and the sanctity of life, while pushing the country off the cliff of secular socialism? And give testimony to the man who is leading the destructive parade?

And there's more. The White House announced Friday that the HHS Mandate will now be forced on colleges and universities, not just social and religious organizations.

This means that college students---who already get abortions at the highest rate compared with women in other age categories, will be able to get free birth control pills, Plan B pills, and the ella drug that causes early-term abortion after conception..

Planned Parenthood is applauding.

Now we are learning that the Obama Administration has approved an experiment using the remains of the bodies of unborn children discarded from the abortion shops.

Barbaric.

The FDA has approved StemCells, Inc. to conduct a clinical trial which uses brain tissue from aborted babies to treat macular degeneration.

StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cell's effect on vision.

StemCells, Inc., in their press release, was very careful in their wording and phrases when they made their announcement last month. They referred to the fetal brain material as "purified human neural stem cell product," which is the phrase they use on their web site.

Scott Fishbach, director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, first discovered the project and reported it. He says the practice is not unique to StemCells, Inc. He points out that the "misleadingly-named Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington is known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue."

It appears that Governor Gregoire, PPH, NARAL and the UW "Research Lab" have a vertically integrated business plan.

One wonders how all this is squared up with the "Do No Harm" principle that has governed the practice of medicine for millennia.

The religious left's blind faith in government not only tramples on religious freedoms, but on the sanctity of life itself.

While it is unfortunate that those who started the Temperance movement have seen their work hi-jacked, they bear some responsibility.

Prohibitionists imagined that legislation, orchestrated from Washington DC, could solve the social ills of our nation.

It cannot.

The social ills of our nation can only be solved by a spiritual, not a political solution.

Our Founders understood that and so must we.

It is imperative to the future of this nation that pastors boldly preach the gospel---how it impacts a personal life and a culture, define right and wrong in biblical terms, explain the remedy for sin and proclaim deliverance in the power of a resurrected Jesus Christ.

The "social justice" movement, led by Jim Wallis and others, under the guise of righteousness, has created an industry around poverty and now one around the use of human baby parts---government has been expanded and the value of life diminished and devalued to "purified human neural stem cell product" as an energized government stands poised to create more coercion and control, while trampling the very religious freedoms our Founding Fathers defined in framing a new nation under God.

God help us.

24 comments:

Violating the most fundamental teaching of Christianity and Christ Himself…

Ok, please expand how the health act conflicts with the Great Commandments? Do we agree that all Christian law flows from these and this is what Christ asked his followers to do or are you talking about something else?

Right on . I understand the concerns with obama Care , I am against it myself over all. Wish they had went slower with it , passed it in chucnks . looks to me insurance companies are still making out at the poors expense , or the working poors and middle class expense .

But obviously there is a medical crisis in costs in this country , with higher unemployment its getting worse . But the religious left is just the same , anything Obama does or anything that is under the guise of helping is supported . Its not just what would Jesus Cut , its also Who would Jesus put into debt . Our Grand Kids are paying for our health care of today .

We are a broke culture , Jesus is the answer , and I really applaud those in politics who serve Christ , especiallyy serving Christ by serving the poor, our culture needs more serving Christ then politicians who think they have all the answers .

Come, come - neither Gary nor any right winger have any solutions - their sole goal is to "kill, steal and destroy" - as opposed to "love, build and heal". Of course, they would never couch their agenda in this matter - that is the deception part - BUT you will never get any other orientation from them.... Should be a clue as to which spirit they are of - and which they are not of.

Last time I checked, love thy neighbor as thyself is a personal commandment to individual Christians and the body of Christ as a whole, not to the government. Wanna help? Good, get involved. Leave the Feds to do what they're constitutionally called to do, defend the country and punish criminals.

Actually, I prefer the feds to 'promote the general welfare' as they are constitutionally called to do. Single payer healthcare is proven to be the most efficient and cost effective method of delivery, bar none. It's good that you will look after your neighbor, however efficient health care delivery requires economies of scale quite a lot larger than that. Medicare for everyone would work quite nicely. And, by the way, in our system of government - we are the government - it is our own collective group of services that we have chosen.

So your opinion is single payer is the best , that is not what was shoved down our collective throats .

But you are still defending we are the government , even though the health care plan this Administration chosen has made it worse, the majority is against it , and very well may violate the Constitution .

Clarify your point , seems like to me your defending big government even when big government does the wrong thing ? The single payer side of the debate was thrown under the bus by the president .

Promoting the General Welfare under your understanding of the Constitution could also mean paying off the debt, building a larger military , etc .

ANOM 10:01 Said "Actually, I prefer the feds to 'promote the general welfare' as they are constitutionally called to do."

The US Supreme Court has ruled that nothing in the preamble grants legislative power.

"Welfare" should not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole preamble - the idea of the preamble is simply that the founders of our nation think that the proposed system of governance would naturally result in the items listed in the preamble. Be very cautious to not confuse result and causation.

"General welfare" is one of the ostensible results of our system of governance.

Turning the tables around and saying that "general welfare" is a legislative goal is entirely corrupt and against what the founders were saying.

The founders defined "welfare" as a result - a natural consequence. Those who would incorrectly have you believe that it is a legislative objective try to rewrite history by making a consequential result into an active cause.

May I ask where this distortion has came from? I have seen it cut and pasted verbatim around the web. It ignores that the legislative branch is given direct authority to raise funds for 'the general welfare in the Constitution. Of course the preamble doesn't give legislative authority, it just identifies the need. It is further on in the document where the legislature is given the explicit authority do so.

The aministration's mistake was assuming the integrity of the opposition. The using the existing free market system to institute affordable health care was an idea supported by republicans and is just common sense. I do wish there was a single payer option since I rankle at the idea of the head of a health insurance conglomerate living in a $20 million mansion, but as long as insurance is affordable and available I can make do.

Still unanswered is my original question - how is affordable health care against anything that Christ taught

Context, the pharisees were looking for a way to trap Jesus, which you know. It had nothing to do with supporting what those taxes were used for, which you also know. Would Jesus approve of paying taxes to the Third Reich knowing they were used to exterminate a whole race of people? I don't think so.

Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace but a sword, a man's enemies would be those of his own household. When He returns it will be to wage war on the beast and his armies. There is no proscription against war in and of itself, only the motives. There are just reasons for war and Christians aren't prohibited from doing so.

God directed Israel to wage war on the tribes around her, to punish them for their detestable and abominitable practices. He also directed nations to wage war on Israel to punish her for idolatry.

We have the right to protest what our taxes are used for in this country, whether unjust wars or genocide. We all pick our fights, don't tell me you don't.

And no one said you didn't Craig, just pointing out that paying taxes to a government that is using them for things you don't like is not against Christian principles, as per Jesus as per the topic of this thread.

And remember you tried to get all 'contextual' with me the next time we discuss the contexts of Biblical references to same sex behavior - sexual idolatry, infidelity, and rape we can hopefully agree are wrong no matter what the gender of the people are, but those are the only contexts that gay people are even mentioned negatively.

I agree, its all about context - and gay people can keep the Great Commandments, the source of all current law, just as easily as straight ones can and still have a spouse.

Did you read my first paragraph? Like I said, it had nothing to do with supporting what those taxes are used for. Jesus knew they were trying to trap him, so they would have something to accuse him of. You didn't answer my question, would Jesus approve of giving money to the Third Reich, knowing it was being used to exterminate a race of people?

Again, the context of sexual immorality, is using sex in a manner not approved by God. I agree that rape, infidelity and idolatry are wrong, no matter who is doing it. There is no indication that the residents of Sodom where married, either to a woman or each other or that their sexual preference was any part of a religious ceremony. They certainly weren't raping each other, it was consensual. God had already determined to destroy the city before the angels arrived and no, the residents didn't know they were such. Sexual immorality of any kind is sin. Old or New Testament.

Before you come with 'sodomy' or 'homosexuality' are made up words, so is 'gay' or any other word for that matter.

As for your assertion that those are the only contexts that homosexuality is mentioned negatively. It's not mentioned even ONCE in a positive way. God would affirm it if it was so, eh? He did not....and so it goes........

Craig, the issue is not 'support' but secular vs spiritual obligation. Would Jesus have said its ok to pay taxes in Nazi Germany, considering what the Romans did as a matter of policy to other peoples and countries right then? Of course, there is no difference - slaughtering masses of people is the same no matter how they are grouped.

Again, what makes you think there was any 'gay sex' in Sodom and Gomorrah? They asked to know the strangers, just like any street gang would that was asserting its authority. In the bible the word 'know' is only rarely used as a euphemism for consensual sexual activity, something a gang doesn't do. In this instance they just were asking to 'know' them, i.e. come on out here where we can see you. Same question was asked by a gang in Judges, but they were decidedly heterosexual and when the man they asked to 'know' told his friends he said they wanted to kill him, not rape him.

Old Testament references all talk about the arrogance and inhospitality of these people to others (like a street gang) as Jesus himself aluded. The only reference that even touches on sexuality is Jude and it does in the context of interspecies sex, be that would be with either animals or angels (again the stories of Enoch were very popular at the time of Judes writing)

Again, this is American and you can believe as you will but I don't see what a gang calling out strangers from a private home in an ancient town has to do with sexual orientation at all.

As far as you saying everything we can do has to be spelled out, that's again you and your heavy yoke that Christians have been freed from. We are under the Great Commandments now, we are under a positive mandate, not a negative one. Bible doesn't say we can fly in planes, take dominion over other than earth or a thousand other things either. We are to live by Christ's Law and judge by Grace, and you have yet to show how a gay couple in a loving relationship are unable to do that.

Again, even today much of our taxes go for things citizens don't like - I remember growing up the protestors that were on the steps of the county courthouse almost every Sunday protesting the government's involvement in what ever war was currently going on. But these people still payed their taxes regardless.

So to clearly state the point again - A Christian can pay taxes to the state even if some of them go to things they don't personally approve of and be following the teachings of Jesus. Those sort of secular rquirements are irrelevant as per Jesus.

Again the issue is not paying taxes, but protesting what they're used for, which is my right as much as yours. As per your original post, I can pick and choose just like you. The point of the tax question was they were trying to trap Jesus as the Scripture clearly points out. It had nothing to do with the approval of what they were used for or an obligation to do so, only that it was legal to pay them.

Who said any thing about consensual sex between the men of the city and the strangers? I said they had consensual sex amongst each other, which is where the word sodomite comes from, but you knew that, didn't you? Yes, the Hebrew word 'yada' has other connotations, but in this context. It's sex, notice Lot's response "no, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing' Gen. 19:7, his offer of his daughters instead and their refusal. They wanted the men for sex. They just wanted to meet and greet? Really! You're being obtuse, Oshtur. Thousands of years of understanding is to be undone by the Doctrine of Oshturism? I don't think so... homey don't play that:) Enoch has nothing to do with Jude, remember that God is writing Jude, not aprocryphal legends. Sexual orientation is by choice, you chose to be that way, God says don't.

Where, pray tell, is there a gay "marriage" in the Bible? Where is a 'gay' loving relationship in the New Testament Church?Positive mandate? We've always been under a positive mandate, do what God says and live. Don't and die, simple as that. Old or New, Law or Grace.

My yoke is easy, my burden is for those who treat God's grace as a filthy rag. Why will you die? Is your pride so great that you won't humble yourself and repent?

Craig, I guess we were discussing different things then - 'the issue' was always there is nothing against Christian principles (again, the point of the blog entry) in paying secular taxes to a government, even when it is using the money for things that some might not be consider an act they approve of. It has the Jesus stamp of approval. I have already acknowledged you have a right to be upset or protest, just that regardless it has nothing to do with 'Christian principles'.

As to your convoluted arguments on Genesis 19. Please, you can't think of a 'wicked thing' that a mob could do to strangers, in a town know for how they enslaved and mistreated traveling strangers other than sex? Are you so really unfamiliar on how gangs work, on how they 'call out' their prospective victims before an attack? You think when a biker gang calls out a stranger their only two choices are 'a meet and greet' or they want to have sex with them? Really?

Yes the mob refused the immoral bribe of a female distraction, just at the decidedly heterosexual one did in Judges 19. That proves nothing other than neither crowd was there for sex, they were there to take and rob/beat-up/assert their authority over the strangers, just like gangs in lawless towns do today. The only difference is that Lot didn't push his daughters out the door as the coward in Judges did. If he had the result would have been the same.

And your comment about 'thousands of years of understanding' is what's funny because for thousands of years the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and lawless mistreatment for those that were not their own. The old Testament mentions the sins of Sodom many times, doesn't mention sex. Jesus alludes to the sins of Sodom when he says that not welcoming the traveling apostles would merit the same punishment as Sodom. It is only the corruption of the messages that suddenly made it about something it doesn't say, after centuries of being understood as beings something different. Before Jude was even written by men the corruption of Christ's message was underway. You want to think it was define then all that means is the Enochian tales were true and mortal women were having sex with angels, as is mentioned in Genesis and far more in the Torah writings. Has noting to do with gay people either way you look at it.

But as you demonstrate you are still looking for an external law. Jeremiah says that the new Covenant will be written on men's hearts, not come from without. We are told what we should do, not what we shouldn't. Again, marriage is of this world, it is of the flesh and inconsequential to what's really important. The New Covenant belongs to all, men and women, rich and poor, slave and Gentile, gay or straight. Your obsession with the flesh is your undoing.

So take your own advice, and understand what God says, the Old Law is dead, the new is written on men's hearts and defined by Grace. The pride is yours, and thinking you will 'obey' a dead Law to salvation is both your arrogance and your fatal mistake.

1. There is nothing against Christian principles in not paying taxes either when they support immorality.

2. I can think of lots of things they could do to a stranger; boil them in oil, sacrifice them to Baal, beat them to a pulp, take them to dinner and eat them, so what...? That's not the context, a whole lot of inhospitable towns who mistreated their guests by robbing them, beating them up, or exhorting their authority weren't destroyed by God. What was different about Sodom and Gomarrah? Their rampant sexual immorality, specifically homosexuality. God told the Israelites to utterly destroy the Canaanite cities for their embrace of this culture, lest they be polluted by it.

Have you actually read Judges 19? I don't think so, the crowd again asked for the man for sex, decidely heterosexual my eye. It was his concubine that was raped. Not there for sex, huh? They would have done the same to the man, raped him to death. God destroyed Gilbeah for their wickedness. Keep dancing around it, doesn't change God's Word.

3. While we're on God's Word, it's either all His or all man's, can't be both. I think God said what He meant and He's perfectly capable of keeping it His, despite the frailties of men. God's Word is Divine. Jesus is the Word.

4. Yes, the sins of Sodom and Gomarrah were many, the one that got them destroyed was homosexuality. Turning away the Apostles would be akin to rejecting the Gospel, that will get a person or a city destroyed, just like it will now.

5. Yes, the new covenant has been written on my heart and belongs to all who accept Christ on His terms, not on yours. BTW, where does it say gay or straight in that passage? Oh, you mean it doesn't, imagine that. Jesus had much to say about what we shouldn't do, you're listening to false prophets again. Do your ears itch? Fill them with God's Word, not the flavor of the month.

Did you know that the Great Commandments are Old Testament?

The law doesn't save, it brings you to Christ.Salvation is in Him alone. You're right on one thing, your flesh will be your undoing, your hubris an eternal mistake.

And since Jesus told you to render unto Caesars, refusing to do so is most certainly not in accordance with God's wishes. Your making things up to suit your purposes, this isn't anything new.

And since you are just going to make up stuff so there's not much sense in continuing. You assume the answer you want and then just argue as if it were true. Please show me the single solitary quote in the Old or New Testament that talk about homosexuality related to Sodom? There isn't a single one. Only after the corruption of the Church was the english word 'sodomite' coined, and the word most often translated for it was the generic one that just meant 'temple prostitute'. Taking after the fact corruption of the Word through mistranslation over the clear lack of any such claim in the Old Testament and all its ancillary writings shows your self-serving agenda.

Its this arrogance of putting words in God's mouth is what condemns. In neither judges 19 or genesis 19 were the gangs asking for men to come out and have consensual sex with them - that you would think that is just silly and dangerous. They were gangs calling strangers out as gangs are prone to do, and it was this lawlessness, this disregard for the basic rights of all, that condemned them. Obvious in Genesis, even more so in Judges.

And yes Jesus did have much to say about what we shouldn't do, and all of them have to do with violations of the Great Commandments, the ones that are written on men's hearts. Again, a gay couple in a loving relationship doesn't violate them, but persecution of them because of it does.

That you think it is some sort of revelation that the Great Commandments are in the Old Covenant just shows how far off the path you are. Of course they are, what's different is they are now the fount of the Law that lives in men's hearts, not from books, not from the mouths of those with whited sepulchers for hearts.

All out of pearls, you'll have to go back to your regular diet. May you someday wake up to the truth.

Like I said, who said anything about consensual sex in Gen. 19 or Judg. 19? Homosexuality was condenmed in the early church long before the term sodomite was coined and even longer before gay was coined.

Paul, an old testament scholar if there ever was one, condemned it. All of God's word is a revelation, He had men write it down, in books. You got a problem with that, take it up with Him. They were always the fount.

The white sepulchers are the mouths of those who condone lasciviousness. You never had any pearls to begin with. May you someday repent.

Obama is not a Christian. He does NOT believe Jesus is the way the truth or the life and that there is no other God but Him. Moreover, obama supports killing unborn children and eugenics as is clearly seen in his appointment of John Holdren a man who wrote books about forcing Americans to be sterilized, having abortions and who advocates government population control. Don’t be fooled. It’s not hard to seduce a crowd by saying you were on your knees. Big deal. Being on your knees and even praying doesn’t make you a Christian. The only time he’s on his knees is when he’s looking for a vote. Obama has a story for every crowd he appears to. Romney is no better. Romney think he’s going to be a god and live on a planet when he goes to heaven. Obama thinks he a god now on this planet. In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place.” Obama also said, “All people of faith-Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God.”

But Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to Obama’s “many paths.” Obama’s father, grandfather and great grandfather were all muslim, this makes him a muslim in muslim religion. He is compromised. He should NOT be chief and commander of our military. And he’s most definately not a friend to Israel.